EXCLUSIVE: Hawks, AFL in trial of on-field zones

[Happy Days]

I'm ambivalent towards zoning - I kind of lean towards the idea that it's an overcorrection that we don't really need and is only being brought up because the AFL is relatively devoid of scandal, and the coach of the most influence in the AFL is being confronted with the reality of his team not being all that good for the first time in a decade. Plus I generally prefer the game to develop organically - coaches' responses to congestion in the past 10 years (Geelong's over-handballing, Hawthorn's prioritisation of foot skill, our use of third-man up to clear stoppages) has lead to some of the most watchable football ever, without a rule change to precede any of it.

But I also know as addressed by others that the change is probably a lot of traditionalist hand-wringing, and the game will still be the best game in the world.

My real concern is how exactly did Clarkson get so much influence to the point that he can be a consulting figure on what would be a fundamental change to the way the game is played? Between this and his coffee date with Gil to discuss why the umpires hate Hawthorn so much all of a sudden, he is being shown to have way too much pull for an obviously biased stakeholder.

[Doc26]

Clubs are able to lock the ball inside their forward 50 because they can implement a 18-man rolling zone to keep it there...if you restrict their starting positions, well - they can't do that...they can 'only' implement a 13-man zone. Say what you will, but having 10x less players (5 from each team) crowding up the forward half WILL make it easier to exit the ball...because there are 10 less players to navigate past.

Buckley's comment "nothing you do from a positioning perspective will change that" doesn't make sense. If less players are there to "lock it in" forward half, then it WILL be easier to:

a/. For the attacking team to score because there will be less players (and therefore more space) inside f50.
b/. The defensive team to exit because there will be less players (and therefore more space) congesting the exit points.

As soon as a repeat stoppage occurred (which includes a point being kicked), players would be compelled to reset which open things up.

Ask Buckley to draw on a white board the way he sets up to defend at a stoppage 30m out from Collingwood's scoring goal. Then grab an eraser and rub out 5 of those crosses and see what it looks like...suggesting it 'wont make a difference' is actually laughable.

How much of a time impost have you seen with players having to reset their positions after each stoppage / kick in ? Is it a negligible effect ?

[bornadog]

My only point - only point - is that when people talk in fearful terms about 'zones' they just don't know how the thing that is called the 3-2 system works. It defines starting points for 5x players on the ground at STOPPAGES and KICK-INS...that's IT. There are no 'lines' that you can't cross over in order to make a lead/contest the footy...it simply doesn't work that way.

So, if all 36 players are in one of the 50m arcs and there is a stoppage, does that mean 5 players have to sprint back up the ground to their spots, or do you think they won't bother pressing forward?

What has happened to the game is we have over complicated it with a lot of don't do this don't do that, which has lead to confusion by supporters on a lot of rules and made the umpiring almost impossible. My mate who was an umpire said, when he was umpiring, if there were two consecutive ball ups, just pick out a free for the defending side and clear the pack.

The prior opportunity has certainly contributed to the rolling mauls with players prepared to handball to someone within 2 feet of them knowing they won't be pinged due to no prior and just creating the stoppage. The 3rd man up was clearing the ball to some extent, and the rule for nominating the ruckman has also contributed to a stoppage longer than it should be.

I was watching a game on the weekend (on TV), and the boundary umpire didn't just throw the ball in, they waited for the ruckman to nominate and be ready, so what happens, players sprint up to form a pack.

As Bevo said today, some cosmetic changes can be made, but I for one am not ready to start making wholesale changes to our game.

[westdog54]

I'm ambivalent towards zoning - I kind of lean towards the idea that it's an overcorrection that we don't really need and is only being brought up because the AFL is relatively devoid of scandal, and the coach of the most influence in the AFL is being confronted with the reality of his team not being all that good for the first time in a decade. Plus I generally prefer the game to develop organically - coaches' responses to congestion in the past 10 years (Geelong's over-handballing, Hawthorn's prioritisation of foot skill, our use of third-man up to clear stoppages) has lead to some of the most watchable football ever, without a rule change to precede any of it.

But I also know as addressed by others that the change is probably a lot of traditionalist hand-wringing, and the game will still be the best game in the world.

My real concern is how exactly did Clarkson get so much influence to the point that he can be a consulting figure on what would be a fundamental change to the way the game is played? Between this and his coffee date with Gil to discuss why the umpires hate Hawthorn so much all of a sudden, he is being shown to have way too much pull for an obviously biased stakeholder.

TBH I'm not sure if Clarko is being 'Consulted' as such here, more that his team was being used as a guinea pig.

[westdog54]

How much of a time impost have you seen with players having to reset their positions after each stoppage / kick in ? Is it a negligible effect ?

So, if all 36 players are in one of the 50m arcs and there is a stoppage, does that mean 5 players have to sprint back up the ground to their spots, or do you think they won't bother pressing forward?

You've effectively asked the same question here so I'll reply to both of you:

I would think that you'd find that teams would re-structure to avoid breaching the rule, and that the onus is on the players on the field to be in position

The prior opportunity has certainly contributed to the rolling mauls with players prepared to handball to someone within 2 feet of them knowing they won't be pinged due to no prior and just creating the stoppage. The 3rd man up was clearing the ball to some extent, and the rule for nominating the ruckman has also contributed to a stoppage longer than it should be.

Prior opportunity is a problem but I think dropping it entirely would be a bad call to make.

I've thought long and hard about prior opportunity and whilst I wouldn't can it completely, I would:

• Amend it so that receiving a pass from a teammate would be considered having prior opportunity to dispose of the ball
• Any attempt to break a tackle, whether the player has had prior opportunity or not, should be holding the ball even if the ball is pinned to the player.

I was watching a game on the weekend (on TV), and the boundary umpire didn't just throw the ball in, they waited for the ruckman to nominate and be ready, so what happens, players sprint up to form a pack.

[/QUOTE]

Put quite simply, that shouldn't be happening.

I'll finish by saying that the discussion on this thread has started really well. Lets keep the standard up.

[Happy Days]

TBH I'm not sure if Clarko is being 'Consulted' as such here, more that his team was being used as a guinea pig.

Leaving the consultation point to the side - how does it represent equity that one team gets to be the guinea pig in a trial that the AFL is considering adopting? Seems like a bit of an unfair advantage to give one club an extra 6-8 months of exposure.

[westdog54]

Leaving the consultation point to the side - how does it represent equity that one team gets to be the guinea pig in a trial that the AFL is considering adopting? Seems like a bit of an unfair advantage to give one club an extra 6-8 months of exposure.

That's a fair enough question to be asking, but you'd have to think there would be an uproar, from fans and clubs alike, if this was brought in without a more extensive trial.

It appears they've tried to do this on the quiet, and rightly so IMO, but the media have caught hold of it.

[Axe Man]

The state of AFL football has been a hot topic in the last week, but Beveridge today argued for caution rather than dramatic change.

“It's a difficult one to debate dramatic change because our game is so pure and obviously there's some talking points around congestion and scoring at the moment.

“There's some quite cosmetic changes we can make, like balling the ball up a bit quicker, which means you don't nominate ruckman, it's the team's obligation to make sure they've only got one up if we want to maintain the one-up rule.

“There's things currently in the game through the broadcast and the umpires not moving the game on quick enough that encourage and entice congestion. There will always be times when there's a lot of numbers in certain areas but I think we make the cosmetic changes and see how it affects us, let's not be too dramatic.”

I agree with Bevo's take. Let's try a couple of less dramatic measures before we start completely changing the game by introducing zones.

Get rid of nominating the ruckman and allow anybody to contest the ball-up/throw in. I don't care if 3, 4 or 10 people go up, just get it moving. Field umpires to throw the ball up straight away and the same for boundary umpires at throw-ins.

[Ozza]

Clubs are able to lock the ball inside their forward 50 because they can implement a 18-man rolling zone to keep it there...if you restrict their starting positions, well - they can't do that...they can 'only' implement a 13-man zone. Say what you will, but having 10x less players (5 from each team) crowding up the forward half WILL make it easier to exit the ball...because there are 10 less players to navigate past.

Buckley's comment "nothing you do from a positioning perspective will change that" doesn't make sense. If less players are there to "lock it in" forward half, then it WILL be easier to:

a/. For the attacking team to score because there will be less players (and therefore more space) inside f50.
b/. The defensive team to exit because there will be less players (and therefore more space) congesting the exit points.

As soon as a repeat stoppage occurred (which includes a point being kicked), players would be compelled to reset which open things up.

Ask Buckley to draw on a white board the way he sets up to defend at a stoppage 30m out from Collingwood's scoring goal. Then grab an eraser and rub out 5 of those crosses and see what it looks like...suggesting it 'wont make a difference' is actually laughable.

My read on this, is that his comments may be self-serving. Buckley is currently coaching the team with the most pure running power in the league right now (possibly only matched by a fully fit GWS list), and their ability to have all 18 players working up and back works pretty well for him - so he probably doesn't want to see changes that might threaten what he's been implementing for the last few years!

[mjp]

So, if all 36 players are in one of the 50m arcs and there is a stoppage, does that mean 5 players have to sprint back up the ground to their spots, or do you think they won't bother pressing forward?

It means 5 players from each team need to show an INTENT to reset - so yes, they will have to run back. They don't have to BE back - they have to be attempting to reset. Pretty tenuous I know but it is different.

That said, I think you will find they simply don't press up as high because they will have 'deeper' starting points so they wont be able to 'empty out' as quickly or easily as they do today.

What has happened to the game is we have over complicated it with a lot of don't do this don't do that, which has lead to confusion by supporters on a lot of rules and made the umpiring almost impossible. My mate who was an umpire said, when he was umpiring, if there were two consecutive ball ups, just pick out a free for the defending side and clear the pack.

Supporters - even fanatical ones - have no idea about the rules. Everyone bangs on about 'prior opportunity' and how eliminating it would somehow markedly improve things...but I don't think anyone actually knows what it means. The reality is, this rule is just umpired extremely poorly today and when it isn't, everyone sooks that the player 'had no chance' and 'you have to protect the guy going for the ball'. Prior opportunity is really well explained HERE: http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-...lding-the-ball

When you watch that, it all makes sense...but the game is not umpired that way.

Umpires are OK in general but their unwillingness to simply pay the simple free-kicks that appear in front of them in order to - well, who knows what? is amazing. If they simply paid high contact, in the back/hands in the back and holding the ball EVERY TIME prior opportunity had been exceeded (and this means any time a player takes on a tackle - including a fend, dropping their head into the contact or a side-step that counts as prior opportunity) then things would improve markedly. But if we want a return to the good old days and one-v-one contests between forwards and backs, then we need to do something a bit more radical than try and 'fix umpiring'.

If you watch any of the so called classic matches on FOX which these days seem to only feature games from 2000-2017 (yes - how a classic game is < 12 months old I have no idea either) you will see some games from 15-years ago featuring a more traditional 'lead out, take a mark, kick a goal' type forward play from the likes of Barry Hall and Chris Tarrant. But the space around the top of the 50m arc is significantly greater than it is these days (with the exception of our game versus West Coast earlier this year or the first q last week of Swans vs Saints - and that was just terrible effort by the defensive teams involved) and it is because the players simply push a lot harder to get back and defend (aka clog up the leading lanes). AND, you will very rarely see situations where teams hold the ball up through the midfield because they have gotten 'OUT' but have ZERO team-mates ahead of them to kick to. That happens every single game now - teams start kicking backwards not to change the angle of attack and work around a disciplined defensive zone but simply because they need to slow the ball down to actually enable someone to push down the ground so they can kick it to them...

[Ozza]

I like the idea of these starting positions. Not 100% sure that 5 (2 + 3) is the correct number for AFL - maybe 4 or 3 makes the change less dramatic - but I certainly think the idea has merit. Dangerfield was on radio just a moment ago and said that himself and a number of other players (Sloane, Burgoyne were mentioned amongst others) watched the vision of the hawks training yesterday and he said it looked good and was well received by the players. He said at times it reminded him circa 2005 where Judd would burst away from a stoppage and it looked like nobody was around him once he cleared the stoppage area.

[bornadog]

Thanks for your insights MJP, really appreciate your analysis of the game.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to go back to the so called good old days, that will never happen not matter what rules are changed. Coaches, are more astute now, players are bigger, stronger faster and are able to run all day and tackling is just incredible.

I guess at the end of the day, I don't trust the AFL with their knee jerk reactions and the zero thoughts of what the consequences are of a rule change. I prefer Bevo's thoughts ie take it slowly, nothing radical and see where we go.

Umpires are OK in general but their unwillingness to simply pay the simple free-kicks that appear in front of them in order to - well, who knows what? is amazing. If they simply paid high contact, in the back/hands in the back and holding the ball EVERY TIME prior opportunity had been exceeded (and this means any time a player takes on a tackle - including a fend, dropping their head into the contact or a side-step that counts as prior opportunity) then things would improve markedly.

I totally agree with your view on umpiring, but I think their job is so hard with all the rule interpretations and direction given by the AFL. I have said this for a number of years, just umpire the basics as you have mentioned, including incorrect disposal.

[mjp]

I guess at the end of the day, I don't trust the AFL with their knee jerk reactions and the zero thoughts of what the consequences are of a rule change. I prefer Bevo's thoughts ie take it slowly, nothing radical and see where we go.

The problem is, one person's conservative is another person's fascist!

What defines radical?

To me, there have been significant trials of 3-different rules:

1/. 16/side (AFLW). Zero impact.
2/. Last touch (AFLW). Zero impact.
3/. 3-2 'zone'. TAC Cup and National Champs since 2014. Impact.

Is a trial of that length of time enough to justify a trial in the pre-season next year?

[bornadog]

The problem is, one person's conservative is another person's fascist!

What defines radical?

To me, there have been significant trials of 3-different rules:

1/. 16/side (AFLW). Zero impact.
2/. Last touch (AFLW). Zero impact.
3/. 3-2 'zone'. TAC Cup and National Champs since 2014. Impact.

Is a trial of that length of time enough to justify a trial in the pre-season next year?

Not sure if trialling in women's football and under 18 competitions is enough to say it works in senior elite football.

[Ozza]

The problem is, one person's conservative is another person's fascist!

What defines radical?

To me, there have been significant trials of 3-different rules:

1/. 16/side (AFLW). Zero impact.
2/. Last touch (AFLW). Zero impact.
3/. 3-2 'zone'. TAC Cup and National Champs since 2014. Impact.

Is a trial of that length of time enough to justify a trial in the pre-season next year?

Agree with this. Congestion in the women’s game is worse than AFL - and yes, I understand there is an enormous gulf in skill level and fitness - but both the 16 a side and the last touch do nothing to enhance the game.